Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Damn you, Interplay !

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 10:08:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off :( (
http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.ph...
I feel like nuking their HQ right now.

More about : damn interplay

Anonymous
April 19, 2004 11:53:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

I think your anger is misdirected. According to GB:
http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/static/EplEkpkZZFcPlSzK...

Atari owns the rights to BG3, including production decisions and whether to
produce the title at all.

"Dirk Dreidoppel" <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:c60ti0$5t4$04$1@news.t-online.com...
> After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off :( (
> http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.ph...
> I feel like nuking their HQ right now.
>
>
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 12:51:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Dirk Dreidoppel" <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:c60ti0$5t4$04$1@news.t-online.com...
> After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off :( (
> http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.ph...
> I feel like nuking their HQ right now.
>
RCV: I gave up on them when they went to 3d edition rules. I know
nobody is going to publish a game with 2nd edition rules ever again, so I'm
stuck playing what I have now, but that's OK.
Even if 3d ed was an improvement over 2nd ed I'd be reluctant to embrace
a new system [since I like and am comfortable with 2nd ed] but with it being
no improvement at all, just change for change sake, there was no way I was
going to buy into it.

So, I probably wouldn't have bought BG III anyway......

Rich
Related resources
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 12:51:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Rich C. Velay wrote:

> Even if 3d ed was an improvement over 2nd ed I'd be reluctant to embrace
> a new system [since I like and am comfortable with 2nd ed] but with it being
> no improvement at all, just change for change sake, there was no way I was
> going to buy into it.

You don't think 3rd ed. is an improvement? I think just making the AC
simpler to deal with, and getting rid of the THACO, is already a big
improvement.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 5:36:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

> You don't think 3rd ed. is an improvement? I think just making the AC
> simpler to deal with, and getting rid of the THACO, is already a big
> improvement.

Well, NWN is 3rd ed. It's got it's good and bad points. Overall nice, but I
do miss some of the 2nd ed. class specific abilities and restrictions.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 6:53:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"John Salerno" <johnjsalNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40845682$0$16468$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Rich C. Velay wrote:
>
> > Even if 3d ed was an improvement over 2nd ed I'd be reluctant to
embrace
> > a new system [since I like and am comfortable with 2nd ed] but with it
being
> > no improvement at all, just change for change sake, there was no way I
was
> > going to buy into it.
>
> You don't think 3rd ed. is an improvement? I think just making the AC
> simpler to deal with, and getting rid of the THACO, is already a big
> improvement.

RCV: It's just personal opinion of course, but no; I don't see any
worthwhile improvement in the AC system or THAC0. I have used the 2nd ed
system for years and never had any difficulty with either component.

Rich
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 6:55:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Dirk Dreidoppel" <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:c61nq8$jaf$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> > You don't think 3rd ed. is an improvement? I think just making the AC
> > simpler to deal with, and getting rid of the THACO, is already a big
> > improvement.
>
> Well, NWN is 3rd ed. It's got it's good and bad points. Overall nice, but
I
> do miss some of the 2nd ed. class specific abilities and restrictions.
>
RCV: I agree completely. One of the more attractive aspects of AD&D,
for me, was the trade offs one had to make with regards to classes, races
and abilities. The 3d ed system makes no sense to me on any level......

Rich
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 7:42:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Rich C. Velay wrote:

> "Dirk Dreidoppel" <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:c61nq8$jaf$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>
>>>You don't think 3rd ed. is an improvement? I think just making the AC
>>>simpler to deal with, and getting rid of the THACO, is already a big
>>>improvement.
>>
>>Well, NWN is 3rd ed. It's got it's good and bad points. Overall nice, but
>
> I
>
>>do miss some of the 2nd ed. class specific abilities and restrictions.
>>
>
> RCV: I agree completely. One of the more attractive aspects of AD&D,
> for me, was the trade offs one had to make with regards to classes, races
> and abilities. The 3d ed system makes no sense to me on any level......
>
> Rich
>
>
Why, because it's missing most of the "if you're playing as an elf on a
rainy Thursday in April, then you do this" sorts of rules? Personally,
I've found that 3/3.5E brought much needed logic and consistency to the
game. You shouldn't *have* to spend half the session looking up all of
the exceptions to the rules, and the great bulk of the race/class
restrictions were completely arbitrary and didn't add much to the game
except a general sense of "well, what good reason is there that I can't
do that?". If you're greatly offended by the notion of dwarven Paladins,
you're free to ban them from you're game, but why should the core rules
state that you can't do that? An odd race/class combination is a great
opportunity to develop an interesting backstory for your character.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 8:09:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Troll" <newstroll@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:__0hc.185515$oR5.57612@pd7tw3no...
> Rich C. Velay wrote:
>
> > "Dirk Dreidoppel" <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:c61nq8$jaf$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> >
> >>>You don't think 3rd ed. is an improvement? I think just making the AC
> >>>simpler to deal with, and getting rid of the THACO, is already a big
> >>>improvement.
> >>
> >>Well, NWN is 3rd ed. It's got it's good and bad points. Overall nice,
but
> >
> > I
> >
> >>do miss some of the 2nd ed. class specific abilities and restrictions.
> >>
> >
> > RCV: I agree completely. One of the more attractive aspects of
AD&D,
> > for me, was the trade offs one had to make with regards to classes,
races
> > and abilities. The 3d ed system makes no sense to me on any level......
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
> Why, because it's missing most of the "if you're playing as an elf on a
> rainy Thursday in April, then you do this" sorts of rules?

RCV: Yes, those sorts of rules that sought to balance the inate powers
of races vs class and level restrictions.

> Personally,
> I've found that 3/3.5E brought much needed logic and consistency to the
> game.

RCV: And you are quite welcome to your opinion.

> You shouldn't *have* to spend half the session looking up all of
> the exceptions to the rules, and the great bulk of the race/class
> restrictions were completely arbitrary and didn't add much to the game
> except a general sense of "well, what good reason is there that I can't
> do that?". If you're greatly offended by the notion of dwarven Paladins,
> you're free to ban them from you're game, but why should the core rules
> state that you can't do that?

RCV: Because that's what the rules say. If the designer felt that
allowing a race with many inate abilities to play a class with a great
number of its own special abilities, then he would have. However, for game
balance purposes, classes with a great number of inate abilities were
restricted to races that had no, or very few, special abilities.
I don't have any problem adhering to that - indeed I prefer it.

> An odd race/class combination is a great
> opportunity to develop an interesting backstory for your character.

RCV: Many things can be used to form a back story - one certainly
doesn't need infravision, poison and magic save bonus' and tunneling
expertise in addition to all of the special abilities of a Paladin to form
an interesting back story.
Now, were I DMing someone who desperately wanted to play a Dwarven
Paladin, I could sit down with them and figure something out, balancing one
set of abilities against the other, to form a reasonable and fair character.
[Along the lines, perhaps, of the Halfling "Paladin" in BG II, Mazzy...] I
don't need a set of "rules" to allow me to exercise my creativity, nor to
control my game.
But removing restrictions from the game, overall, is certainly not
something I want in my game, nor, parenthetically, with regards to PnP, is
it something I want to have to pay for, after having spent more than enough
on 1st and 2nd ed materials....

Rich
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 11:13:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Rich C. Velay wrote:
> "Troll" <newstroll@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:__0hc.185515$oR5.57612@pd7tw3no...
>
>>Rich C. Velay wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dirk Dreidoppel" <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:c61nq8$jaf$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You don't think 3rd ed. is an improvement? I think just making the AC
>>>>>simpler to deal with, and getting rid of the THACO, is already a big
>>>>>improvement.
>>>>
>>>>Well, NWN is 3rd ed. It's got it's good and bad points. Overall nice,
>
> but
>
>>>I
>>>
>>>
>>>>do miss some of the 2nd ed. class specific abilities and restrictions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> RCV: I agree completely. One of the more attractive aspects of
>
> AD&D,
>
>>>for me, was the trade offs one had to make with regards to classes,
>
> races
>
>>>and abilities. The 3d ed system makes no sense to me on any level......
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why, because it's missing most of the "if you're playing as an elf on a
>>rainy Thursday in April, then you do this" sorts of rules?
>
>
> RCV: Yes, those sorts of rules that sought to balance the inate powers
> of races vs class and level restrictions.
>
>
>>Personally,
>>I've found that 3/3.5E brought much needed logic and consistency to the
>>game.
>
>
> RCV: And you are quite welcome to your opinion.
>
>
>>You shouldn't *have* to spend half the session looking up all of
>>the exceptions to the rules, and the great bulk of the race/class
>>restrictions were completely arbitrary and didn't add much to the game
>>except a general sense of "well, what good reason is there that I can't
>>do that?". If you're greatly offended by the notion of dwarven Paladins,
>>you're free to ban them from you're game, but why should the core rules
>>state that you can't do that?
>
>
> RCV: Because that's what the rules say. If the designer felt that
> allowing a race with many inate abilities to play a class with a great
> number of its own special abilities, then he would have. However, for game
> balance purposes, classes with a great number of inate abilities were
> restricted to races that had no, or very few, special abilities.

How is this an argument against 3E then? 3E has balanced the special
abilities of classes and races so that you don't *need* to place
arbitrary restrictions on race/class combinations. Out of curiousity,
have you actually played a 3/3.5E campaign, or are you just dead-set in
your ways and not about to try anything new? I'm playing in my second
3.x campaign currently, and I think 3.5 has cleaned up pretty much all
of the balance issues that were present in 3E (which were mostly related
to arcane spells, IMO).

3/3.5E hasn't removed *all* of the restrictions on classes, it's just
pared them down to the bare minimum required by logic and consistency
(ie, from the description and characteristics of the class, it makes
sense that a Paladin must be lawful good, or that a Rogue cannot be lawful).

> I don't have any problem adhering to that - indeed I prefer it.

That's fine. Some people really do enjoy rules for the sake of rules, I
guess.

>
>
>>An odd race/class combination is a great
>>opportunity to develop an interesting backstory for your character.
>
>
> RCV: Many things can be used to form a back story - one certainly
> doesn't need infravision, poison and magic save bonus' and tunneling
> expertise in addition to all of the special abilities of a Paladin to form
> an interesting back story.
> Now, were I DMing someone who desperately wanted to play a Dwarven
> Paladin, I could sit down with them and figure something out, balancing one
> set of abilities against the other, to form a reasonable and fair character.
> [Along the lines, perhaps, of the Halfling "Paladin" in BG II, Mazzy...] I
> don't need a set of "rules" to allow me to exercise my creativity, nor to
> control my game.

You'd prefer to have to hack something together for unusual characters
instead of having it already covered in the core rules? If you're open
to bending the arbitrary 2E race/class rules, then why is it a bad thing
that they've been removed in 3E?

> But removing restrictions from the game, overall, is certainly not
> something I want in my game, nor, parenthetically, with regards to PnP, is
> it something I want to have to pay for, after having spent more than enough
> on 1st and 2nd ed materials....

A new core manual is roughly the same price as a PC game, and you'll be
using it long after the PC game is forgotten. For adventures and old
sourcebooks, there are conversion guides to turn them into 3/3.5E, so
they can be used again if you really want.

Anyway, at least there's a bright side for you - the bargain bins are
full of old 2E adventures and sourcebooks now, so if you want to stay
with it, it'll certainly be cheaper:) 

>
> Rich
>
>
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 12:09:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Rich C. Velay" <RCVelay@remove.this.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Sg0hc.183527$Ig.103073@pd7tw2no...
>
> "John Salerno" <johnjsalNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40845682$0$16468$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> > Rich C. Velay wrote:
> >
> > > Even if 3d ed was an improvement over 2nd ed I'd be reluctant to
> embrace
> > > a new system [since I like and am comfortable with 2nd ed] but with it
> being
> > > no improvement at all, just change for change sake, there was no way I
> was
> > > going to buy into it.
> >
> > You don't think 3rd ed. is an improvement? I think just making the AC
> > simpler to deal with, and getting rid of the THACO, is already a big
> > improvement.
>
> RCV: It's just personal opinion of course, but no; I don't see any
> worthwhile improvement in the AC system or THAC0. I have used the 2nd ed
> system for years and never had any difficulty with either component.

I'm pretty certain that Rich, and I, and a few others around here, could
have made better 3rd ed rules. The 2nd ed rules were very nice and only
needed a few minor tweaks here and there...The 3rd ed rules IMO have ruined
any long lasting appeal in character development. i.e. 'I think I'll be a
sorcerer for a bit'...a couple of levels later, and it's 'I think I'll be a
fighter again for a while'. The decision to move into another class
shouldn't be taken so lightly. It's a bloody occupation change.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 12:33:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Troll wrote:

> the bare minimum required by logic and consistency
> (ie, ...a Rogue cannot be
> lawful).

I don't know what you're thinking of, but there are no alignment
restrictions on rogues in 3ed--nor, tmk, have thieves/rogues ever been
barred from lawful alignment.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 4:48:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Dean Jarratt" <marquis@eidosnet.spamless.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c62ie2$ck4$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> I'm pretty certain that Rich, and I, and a few others around here, could
> have made better 3rd ed rules. The 2nd ed rules were very nice and only
> needed a few minor tweaks here and there...The 3rd ed rules IMO have
ruined
> any long lasting appeal in character development. i.e. 'I think I'll be a
> sorcerer for a bit'...a couple of levels later, and it's 'I think I'll be
a
> fighter again for a while'. The decision to move into another class
> shouldn't be taken so lightly. It's a bloody occupation change.

RCV: I agree with this sentiment as well. Personally, I see it as a
situation where character development was tossed overboard in favor of class
development.

The focus of the game has been changed radically from what it used to be
and replaced with something I don't like, and which I am not interested in
playing. 3d ed seems, to me, to be primarily aimed at what I would call
"power gamers", who are primarily concerned with abilities, rather than with
living and developing a character within restriction and limitations.

Taking a few weeks off from being a fighter, just to gain the ability to
use wands, and later being a priest and then a ....... well it isn't what
I consider "role playing", its "stat playing" or some such.

No doubt lots of people like it, pimarily I would expect people raised
on video games, but to an old dinosaur like myself, it sure doesn't
appeal....

Rich
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 5:09:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Troll" <newstroll@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:p 44hc.186969$oR5.186560@pd7tw3no...
> How is this an argument against 3E then? 3E has balanced the special
> abilities of classes and races so that you don't *need* to place
> arbitrary restrictions on race/class combinations.

RCV: None of what I have said is an "argument against 3d ed" - its
merely my opinion of 2nd ed vs 3d ed.....

> Out of curiousity,
> have you actually played a 3/3.5E campaign, or are you just dead-set in
> your ways and not about to try anything new? I'm playing in my second
> 3.x campaign currently, and I think 3.5 has cleaned up pretty much all
> of the balance issues that were present in 3E (which were mostly related
> to arcane spells, IMO).

RCV: I have very little experience with it - I played in a campaign for
a couple of weeks, with little enthusiasm, and got as familiar with the
rules as I needed to to decide I didn't like 3d ed. However, even had I not
played it at all, just looking at the rules and lurking a bit on the D&D ng
would have been enough to turn me off the game.

>
> 3/3.5E hasn't removed *all* of the restrictions on classes, it's just
> pared them down to the bare minimum required by logic and consistency
> (ie, from the description and characteristics of the class, it makes
> sense that a Paladin must be lawful good, or that a Rogue cannot be
lawful).

RCV: Changes you think are good, no doubt, which I don't agree with,
obvioulsy. How a thief, for example, who operates in an underworld
hierarchy replete with rules and regulations concerning status, power and
control, can be seen as NOT Lawful is beyond me. How can a city wide guild
be seen as "chaotic"?


> > I don't have any problem adhering to that - indeed I prefer it.
>
> That's fine. Some people really do enjoy rules for the sake of rules, I
> guess.

RCV: The less rules there are, the more chaotic the experience. This is
one of the prime reasons AD&D replaced D&D.

>
> You'd prefer to have to hack something together for unusual characters
> instead of having it already covered in the core rules? If you're open
> to bending the arbitrary 2E race/class rules, then why is it a bad thing
> that they've been removed in 3E?

RCV: As a DM, I am always willing to listen to a player's thoughts on
what his/her character should be - and I have the rules to fall back onto if
the players demands/desires are too far out of line with regards to play
balance. If I had wanted a more open-ended, less restrictive RPG to play, I
had many options outside the bounds of AD&D.
3d ed AD&D simply changes too many rules, and adds too much to player
power, for my tastes.


> A new core manual is roughly the same price as a PC game, and you'll be
> using it long after the PC game is forgotten. For adventures and old
> sourcebooks, there are conversion guides to turn them into 3/3.5E, so
> they can be used again if you really want.

RCV: Which I don't want to, thank you. I don't need to purchase another
manual - I have a fully functional and enjoyable game in my hands currently.

>
> Anyway, at least there's a bright side for you - the bargain bins are
> full of old 2E adventures and sourcebooks now, so if you want to stay
> with it, it'll certainly be cheaper:) 

RCV: Yeah, *if* I needed any of the old books... I don't. And I never
played pre-packaged modules myself, I couldn't see the point - as a DM I
wanted to play MY games, not act as a die roller/time keeper for someone
else's "campaign". And as a player, I certainly didn't want to play
something that any player could buy and get all the "answers" to!

Rich
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 5:14:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Uf5hc.24525$9g3.17099@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> Troll wrote:
>
> > the bare minimum required by logic and consistency
> > (ie, ...a Rogue cannot be
> > lawful).
>
> I don't know what you're thinking of, but there are no alignment
> restrictions on rogues in 3ed--nor, tmk, have thieves/rogues ever been
> barred from lawful alignment.

RCV: Well that's good to know, I thought I had missed something from 3d
ed concerning Rogues alignments. In pre-3d ed, of course, the restriction
was on LG, not L.

Rich
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 6:33:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Dirk Dreidoppel" <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote in message news:<c60ti0$5t4$04$1@news.t-online.com>...
> After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off :( (
> http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.ph...

Don't forget TORN, their pet project, which iirc, they put off
FO3 and BG3 to make.

> I feel like nuking their HQ right now.

Honestly, I wasn't even sure Interplay is still functioning.

--
Ht
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 8:02:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

> Taking a few weeks off from being a fighter, just to gain the ability
to
> use wands, and later being a priest and then a ....... well it isn't
what
> I consider "role playing", its "stat playing" or some such.
>
> No doubt lots of people like it, pimarily I would expect people raised
> on video games, but to an old dinosaur like myself, it sure doesn't
> appeal....
>
> Rich

You have some very valid points there, perhaps it is a sign of the times
where people want to have everything and now)

Though it did bring back memories of the old dungeon master game on my Amiga
where my fighter and other non magic chaacter cast enough 'make light torch
spells' that after hundreds of them they eventually progressed up to making
fireballs)

What a seminal game that was
ATB
The Chris
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 8:33:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

> > any long lasting appeal in character development. i.e. 'I think I'll be
a
> > sorcerer for a bit'...a couple of levels later, and it's 'I think I'll
be a
> > fighter again for a while'. The decision to move into another class
> > shouldn't be taken so lightly. It's a bloody occupation change.
>
> Taking a few weeks off from being a fighter, just to gain the ability
to
> use wands, and later being a priest and then a ....... well it isn't
what
> I consider "role playing", its "stat playing" or some such.

I'm answering both these at once, as they seem really quite closely related
:-)
Agreed, 3rd Ed does allow silly combinations, but I've found that, if you've
got a mature and sensible group (always a bonus) the only time you get
unusual combinations is for character development reasons. It also allows
someone to, for instance, put 2/3 of their levels in Rogue and 1/3 in
Fighter, giving more flexibility in the multiclassing. I do like the more
"linear" stat effects on rolls, which makes on-the-fly calculation a lot
easier, which is great for a mathematical type like myself :-)
April 20, 2004 9:20:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Troll" <newstroll@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:__0hc.185515$oR5.57612@pd7tw3no...
> Rich C. Velay wrote:
>
> > "Dirk Dreidoppel" <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:c61nq8$jaf$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> >
> >>>You don't think 3rd ed. is an improvement? I think just making the AC
> >>>simpler to deal with, and getting rid of the THACO, is already a big
> >>>improvement.
> >>
> >>Well, NWN is 3rd ed. It's got it's good and bad points. Overall nice,
but
> >
> > I
> >
> >>do miss some of the 2nd ed. class specific abilities and restrictions.
> >>
> >
> > RCV: I agree completely. One of the more attractive aspects of
AD&D,
> > for me, was the trade offs one had to make with regards to classes,
races
> > and abilities. The 3d ed system makes no sense to me on any level......
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
> Why, because it's missing most of the "if you're playing as an elf on a
> rainy Thursday in April, then you do this" sorts of rules? Personally,
> I've found that 3/3.5E brought much needed logic and consistency to the
> game. You shouldn't *have* to spend half the session looking up all of
> the exceptions to the rules, and the great bulk of the race/class
> restrictions were completely arbitrary and didn't add much to the game
> except a general sense of "well, what good reason is there that I can't
> do that?". If you're greatly offended by the notion of dwarven Paladins,
> you're free to ban them from you're game, but why should the core rules
> state that you can't do that? An odd race/class combination is a great
> opportunity to develop an interesting backstory for your character.

Besides, its well known to history that Priests in the Middle Ages often
weilded weapons in combat, particularly pointy weapons. It was always
rather silly that Clerics in 2nd Ed couldn't use a sword.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 10:36:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Henry Lockwood" <hnl22@NOSPAM.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:c63fji$257$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> > > any long lasting appeal in character development. i.e. 'I think I'll
be
> a
> > > sorcerer for a bit'...a couple of levels later, and it's 'I think I'll
> be a
> > > fighter again for a while'. The decision to move into another class
> > > shouldn't be taken so lightly. It's a bloody occupation change.
> >
> > Taking a few weeks off from being a fighter, just to gain the
ability
> to
> > use wands, and later being a priest and then a ....... well it isn't
> what
> > I consider "role playing", its "stat playing" or some such.
>
> I'm answering both these at once, as they seem really quite closely
related
> :-)
> Agreed, 3rd Ed does allow silly combinations, but I've found that, if
you've
> got a mature and sensible group (always a bonus) the only time you get
> unusual combinations is for character development reasons. It also allows
> someone to, for instance, put 2/3 of their levels in Rogue and 1/3 in
> Fighter, giving more flexibility in the multiclassing. I do like the more
> "linear" stat effects on rolls, which makes on-the-fly calculation a lot
> easier, which is great for a mathematical type like myself :-)
>
RCV: And that's groovy, I have no problem with other people liking 3d
ed. I simply don't like it myself and I have expressed some reasons *I*
don't like it.
To each their own, of course.

Rich
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 2:50:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Suddenly, Rich C. Velay, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the darkness
and exclaimed:

> Taking a few weeks off from being a fighter, just to gain the
> ability to
> use wands, and later being a priest and then a ....... well it isn't
> what I consider "role playing", its "stat playing" or some such.
>
> No doubt lots of people like it, pimarily I would expect people
> raised
> on video games, but to an old dinosaur like myself, it sure doesn't
> appeal....
>

I'm an old 1E/2E dinosaur myself, and I love it. I remember wheedling a DM
to let my cleric of Frey wield a big blue 2-handed sword (Frey's symbol),
but the rules didn't allow for it.

My favorite recent character was a cleric who took 1/4 of his levels in
bard. It weakened the character from a powergaming standpoint, but it fit
so well into his backstory and personality, I felt it was the thing to do.
After all, he's a priest of the goddess of song and dance, he ought to be
able to carry a tune and do the ol' soft shoe.


--
Billy Yank

"The squirrel has not yet found the acorn that will grow to the oak that
will be cut to form the cradle of the babe that will grow to slay me."
- Neil Gaiman "Stardust"

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 5:46:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Kish wrote:
> Troll wrote:
>
>> the bare minimum required by logic and consistency (ie, ...a Rogue
>> cannot be lawful).
>
>
> I don't know what you're thinking of, but there are no alignment
> restrictions on rogues in 3ed--nor, tmk, have thieves/rogues ever been
> barred from lawful alignment.
>

Doh! I haven't played a roque in 3E yet, and I was too lazy to go dig my
PH out of the car last night (it was cold out). Hmm, I guess then the
only alignment restrictions left would be on Paladins and Monks, then?
Damn, now I'm going to have to look through the PH and check all of them
or it'll drive me nuts.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 5:54:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Troll wrote:

> Doh! I haven't played a roque in 3E yet, and I was too lazy to go dig my
> PH out of the car last night (it was cold out). Hmm, I guess then the
> only alignment restrictions left would be on Paladins and Monks, then?

Paladins must be Lawful Good. Monks must be Lawful. Druids must have
the word "Neutral" in alignment. Clerics must be within one step of the
deity's alignment. Barbarians and bards cannot be Lawful. Those are
all the alignment restrictions for basic classes.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 5:56:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Rich C. Velay wrote:

> "Dean Jarratt" <marquis@eidosnet.spamless.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c62ie2$ck4$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>I'm pretty certain that Rich, and I, and a few others around here, could
>>have made better 3rd ed rules. The 2nd ed rules were very nice and only
>>needed a few minor tweaks here and there...The 3rd ed rules IMO have
>
> ruined
>
>>any long lasting appeal in character development. i.e. 'I think I'll be a
>>sorcerer for a bit'...a couple of levels later, and it's 'I think I'll be
>
> a
>
>>fighter again for a while'. The decision to move into another class
>>shouldn't be taken so lightly. It's a bloody occupation change.
>
>
> RCV: I agree with this sentiment as well. Personally, I see it as a
> situation where character development was tossed overboard in favor of class
> development.
>
> The focus of the game has been changed radically from what it used to be
> and replaced with something I don't like, and which I am not interested in
> playing. 3d ed seems, to me, to be primarily aimed at what I would call
> "power gamers", who are primarily concerned with abilities, rather than with
> living and developing a character within restriction and limitations.
>
> Taking a few weeks off from being a fighter, just to gain the ability to
> use wands, and later being a priest and then a ....... well it isn't what
> I consider "role playing", its "stat playing" or some such.
>
> No doubt lots of people like it, pimarily I would expect people raised
> on video games, but to an old dinosaur like myself, it sure doesn't
> appeal....
>
> Rich

Power gamers show up in every game - it's more a function of who you're
playing with than the ruleset you use. Besides, watching the DM punish a
powergamer by throwing monkey wrenches (repeatedly) into their
strategies can be a lot of fun:) 
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 6:00:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Htn963 wrote:

> "Dirk Dreidoppel" <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote in message news:<c60ti0$5t4$04$1@news.t-online.com>...
>
>>After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off :( (
>>http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.ph...
>
>
> Don't forget TORN, their pet project, which iirc, they put off
> FO3 and BG3 to make.
>
>
>>I feel like nuking their HQ right now.
>
>
> Honestly, I wasn't even sure Interplay is still functioning.

Probably just enough to keep potential buyers (of the company)
interested. Anyway, if Atari plans on making BG3 at some point, aren't
they going to have to make some sort of deal with Interplay? I thought
Interplay had some sort of rights to BG. Or did Bioware just have to
work with them because they were the D&D licensee at the time?
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:41:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Billy Yank" <billyUSCOREyank@verizonDOT.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D1BFBFDD683billyyanknetzeronet@199.45.49.11...
> Suddenly, Rich C. Velay, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the darkness
> and exclaimed:
>
> > Taking a few weeks off from being a fighter, just to gain the
> > ability to
> > use wands, and later being a priest and then a ....... well it isn't
> > what I consider "role playing", its "stat playing" or some such.
> >
> > No doubt lots of people like it, pimarily I would expect people
> > raised
> > on video games, but to an old dinosaur like myself, it sure doesn't
> > appeal....
> >
>
> I'm an old 1E/2E dinosaur myself, and I love it. I remember wheedling a
DM
> to let my cleric of Frey wield a big blue 2-handed sword (Frey's symbol),
> but the rules didn't allow for it.
>
> My favorite recent character was a cleric who took 1/4 of his levels in
> bard. It weakened the character from a powergaming standpoint, but it fit
> so well into his backstory and personality, I felt it was the thing to do.
> After all, he's a priest of the goddess of song and dance, he ought to be
> able to carry a tune and do the ol' soft shoe.

RCV: Yep, lots of freedom in the "old" rules with a good DM. One of my
favorite, and longest lasting, characters was a half-elven Cleric/Ranger
who used a bow and Bastard swords.... but wasn't able to turn undead nor use
Ranger spells. And he was limited to 7th level in Cleric [thanks to 6 mo
real time long quest and a number of wishes to get a 19 Wis...]
As long as the modification is reasonable and pays attention to game
balance, pretty much anything can at least be discussed.

Rich
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:48:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Troll" <newstroll@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bxkhc.179828$Pk3.176591@pd7tw1no...

> Power gamers show up in every game - it's more a function of who you're
> playing with than the ruleset you use. Besides, watching the DM punish a
> powergamer by throwing monkey wrenches (repeatedly) into their
> strategies can be a lot of fun:) 

RCV: I wouldn't know - I never played in a campaign with a "power gamer"
and none played in a campaign I DM'd. Well, not for long anyway - once they
see that I am not a "Monty Haul" DM any self respecting "power gamer" would
absent themselves pretty quick! :)  [note that I have rarely allowed a
"seasoned" PC to enter any of my campaigns - if someone wants to come in,
they roll up a new character and get equipment appropriate to their class
and level as *I* see it. Certainly, no importing magic items from someone
elses campaign....If they are decent players, and they have a reasonable
characyter, I might not force them to roll a new one, but that would be as
far as I might go...]

Rich
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 4:04:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Troll <newstroll@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<YAkhc.193425$oR5.147475@pd7tw3no>...
> Htn963 wrote:

<snip>

> > Honestly, I wasn't even sure Interplay is still functioning.
>
> Probably just enough to keep potential buyers (of the company)
> interested.

New management can't make it much worse. Interplay is an
unreliable, third-grade company, despite being blessed with several
first-class game franchises; I've taken them with many grains of salt
ever since they rushed out Fallout 2 untested and grossly buggy, then
released a patch which wasn't compatible with the previous saved
games.

And when was their last ok game? Probably IWD2, which I'll dig
out of my box of unplayed games to test out since the current debate
on the 3rd rule set has perked my curiosity.

> Anyway, if Atari plans on making BG3 at some point, aren't
> they going to have to make some sort of deal with Interplay? I thought
> Interplay had some sort of rights to BG. Or did Bioware just have to
> work with them because they were the D&D licensee at the time?

You'd probably know more about it; but I'm sure if there was a
strong demand for it (which there isn't and likely won't ever be) it
would get made no matter how the rights were divvied up.

--
Ht
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 12:27:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Rich C. Velay wrote:

> RCV: It's just personal opinion of course, but no; I don't see any
> worthwhile improvement in the AC system or THAC0. I have used the 2nd ed
> system for years and never had any difficulty with either component.

You don't think one of the following situations is much easier and more
intuitive?

1. My AC is 10. Therefore, you have to roll a 10 to hit me.

2. My AC is 10. Your THACO is 15. Subtract your AC from my THACO.
Therefore, you have to roll a 5 to hit me.

I'd much rather deal with #1. I guess if you are used to #2, then it
doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you are presented with both options
at the same time, doesn't #1 seem like the way to go?

Not to mention that even though I have a good understanding of the rules
as implemented in BG1/2, I still sometimes get confused because of the
pluses and minuses. You would think a 'bonus' would be a positive
number, but not in 2nd addition. My DEX bonus to AC is -4 (that's a good
thing), but I make a saving throw against a particular spell with a -4
penalty (a bad thing). Doesn't seem odd to you that the same number is
used for two different things? I much rather prefer that bonuses be +s
and penalties be -s.
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 7:09:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"John Salerno" <johnjsalNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4087ba18$0$16477$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Rich C. Velay wrote:
>
> > RCV: It's just personal opinion of course, but no; I don't see any
> > worthwhile improvement in the AC system or THAC0. I have used the 2nd
ed
> > system for years and never had any difficulty with either component.
>
> You don't think one of the following situations is much easier and more
> intuitive?
>
> 1. My AC is 10. Therefore, you have to roll a 10 to hit me.
>
> 2. My AC is 10. Your THACO is 15. Subtract your AC from my THACO.
> Therefore, you have to roll a 5 to hit me.
>
> I'd much rather deal with #1. I guess if you are used to #2, then it
> doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you are presented with both options
> at the same time, doesn't #1 seem like the way to go?

I don't know anything about 3d ed rules, but it seems to me
that your first example doesn't use some attack skill, while
your second does. Is AC in 3d ed rules based on the attack
skill of the attacker or does experience not matter anymore?

>
> Not to mention that even though I have a good understanding of the rules
> as implemented in BG1/2, I still sometimes get confused because of the
> pluses and minuses. You would think a 'bonus' would be a positive
> number, but not in 2nd addition. My DEX bonus to AC is -4 (that's a good
> thing), but I make a saving throw against a particular spell with a -4
> penalty (a bad thing). Doesn't seem odd to you that the same number is
> used for two different things? I much rather prefer that bonuses be +s
> and penalties be -s.

It doesn't seem logical at all, until you play a P&P game
and actually roll some dice. But I agree, some rules and
bonuses could be made more consistent with each other.

Wim
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 7:09:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Wim Dekker wrote:

>>1. My AC is 10. Therefore, you have to roll a 10 to hit me.

> I don't know anything about 3d ed rules, but it seems to me
> that your first example doesn't use some attack skill, while
> your second does. Is AC in 3d ed rules based on the attack
> skill of the attacker or does experience not matter anymore?

You'd have to roll a 10 after modifiers have been added, but my point
was that it still seems easier just to add things together than do all
the weird math of 2nd ed. If you have an attack modifier of +3, then in
the above example you only need to roll a 7. This method seems more
intuitive to me than having to think about a THACO, and subtracting some
numbers and adding others, etc.
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 7:39:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"John Salerno" <johnjsalNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4087ba18$0$16477$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Rich C. Velay wrote:
>
> > RCV: It's just personal opinion of course, but no; I don't see any
> > worthwhile improvement in the AC system or THAC0. I have used the 2nd
ed
> > system for years and never had any difficulty with either component.
>
> You don't think one of the following situations is much easier and more
> intuitive?
>
> 1. My AC is 10. Therefore, you have to roll a 10 to hit me.
>
> 2. My AC is 10. Your THACO is 15. Subtract your AC from my THACO.
> Therefore, you have to roll a 5 to hit me.
>
> I'd much rather deal with #1. I guess if you are used to #2, then it
> doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you are presented with both options
> at the same time, doesn't #1 seem like the way to go?

RCV: Both options weren't presented to me at the same time, qed.
Besides which, the idea of a Kobold and an Ancient Dragon both needing the
same to hit number strikes me as a bit odd.....

> Not to mention that even though I have a good understanding of the rules
> as implemented in BG1/2, I still sometimes get confused because of the
> pluses and minuses. You would think a 'bonus' would be a positive
> number, but not in 2nd addition. My DEX bonus to AC is -4 (that's a good
> thing), but I make a saving throw against a particular spell with a -4
> penalty (a bad thing). Doesn't seem odd to you that the same number is
> used for two different things? I much rather prefer that bonuses be +s
> and penalties be -s.

RCV: I won't argue that there was stuff that could have been cleaned up
in 1st and 2nd ed - that those mechanical changes could have been
implemented without changing the flavour and focus of the game is also
unarguable. "Fixing" negative and positive modifiers would not have
required non-rolled stats, free-form multiclassing or any of the other game
philosophy changes made in addition to cleaning up the rules.

Rich
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 7:39:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Rich C. Velay wrote:


> Besides which, the idea of a Kobold and an Ancient Dragon both needing the
> same to hit number strikes me as a bit odd.....

I'm no rules expert, but I know that's accounted for. I could look
through my 3.5 book for you. Basically, my point is that the d20 system
seems so much cleaner and more logical.
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 8:55:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Wim Dekker wrote:
> "John Salerno" <johnjsalNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4087ba18$0$16477$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
>
>>Rich C. Velay wrote:
>>
>>
>>> RCV: It's just personal opinion of course, but no; I don't see any
>>>worthwhile improvement in the AC system or THAC0. I have used the 2nd
>
> ed
>
>>>system for years and never had any difficulty with either component.
>>
>>You don't think one of the following situations is much easier and more
>>intuitive?
>>
>>1. My AC is 10. Therefore, you have to roll a 10 to hit me.
>>
>>2. My AC is 10. Your THACO is 15. Subtract your AC from my THACO.
>>Therefore, you have to roll a 5 to hit me.
>>
>>I'd much rather deal with #1. I guess if you are used to #2, then it
>>doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you are presented with both options
>>at the same time, doesn't #1 seem like the way to go?
>
>
> I don't know anything about 3d ed rules, but it seems to me
> that your first example doesn't use some attack skill, while
> your second does. Is AC in 3d ed rules based on the attack
> skill of the attacker or does experience not matter anymore?

In 3ed you have attack bonus rather than THAC0. So while a fifth level
2ed fighter with a +2 Strength bonus would have a THAC0 of 13, a fifth
level 3ed fighter with a +2 Strength bonus would have a melee attack
bonus of +7. Either one needs to roll a 3 to hit a character with an AC
of 10, but in 2ed that's:

Subtract his AC (10) from your THAC0 (13), roll 1d20, and hit that number.

In 3ed it's:

Roll 1d20+7 (your melee attack bonus) and hit 10 (his AC).

> It doesn't seem logical at all, until you play a P&P game
> and actually roll some dice.

I've known lots of people who hated it then, too.
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 8:56:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

John Salerno wrote:

> Rich C. Velay wrote:
>
>
>> Besides which, the idea of a Kobold and an Ancient Dragon both needing
>> the
>> same to hit number strikes me as a bit odd.....
>
>
> I'm no rules expert, but I know that's accounted for. I could look
> through my 3.5 book for you.

(Example numbers, not looked up) The kobold will be rolling 1d20+1,
while the dragon will be rolling 1d20+18.
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 8:56:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Kish wrote:

> (Example numbers, not looked up) The kobold will be rolling 1d20+1,
> while the dragon will be rolling 1d20+18.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. While it's likely that the kobold will
hit you, it's just about guaranteed the dragon will.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 1:11:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Rich C. Velay wrote:

> "Fixing" negative and positive modifiers would not have
> required non-rolled stats

What do you mean?
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 3:49:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Rich C. Velay wrote:
> RCV: I won't argue that there was stuff that could have been cleaned up
> in 1st and 2nd ed - that those mechanical changes could have been
> implemented without changing the flavour and focus of the game is also
> unarguable. "Fixing" negative and positive modifiers would not have
> required non-rolled stats, free-form multiclassing or any of the other game
> philosophy changes made in addition to cleaning up the rules.
>
> Rich

Point buy is an alternative method of generating stats that isn't even
mentioned in the 3.5 PH. Rolling 4D6 and dropping the lowest is the
standard method in 3.5.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 5:27:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

John Salerno wrote:

> Rich C. Velay wrote:
>
>> "Fixing" negative and positive modifiers would not have
>> required non-rolled stats
>
>
> What do you mean?

He's likely referring to the fact that Neverwinter Nights and Icewind
Dale II, both 3ed games, use point buy character creation--instead of
rolling for random stats, you have X points to spend for stats there.

This has nothing to do with the Edition, however; my 2ed and 3ed PHB
both offer the default method of stat generation (rolling), and my 2ed
and 3ed DMG both list point buy character creation as an optional method
of stat generation.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 5:27:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Kish wrote:

> He's likely referring to the fact that Neverwinter Nights and Icewind
> Dale II, both 3ed games, use point buy character creation

Ah, I see. Haven't played those yet. I know my 3.5 PHB doesn't even
mention point buy, but the DMG does, like you said. Personally, I don't
like point buy either, even when you have 32 points to spend (after an
initial 8). Too bad you can't roll in those other games. Are you still
able to get decent stats?
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 2:24:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"John Salerno" <johnjsalNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4087f65f$0$16450$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Wim Dekker wrote:
>
> >>1. My AC is 10. Therefore, you have to roll a 10 to hit me.
>
> > I don't know anything about 3d ed rules, but it seems to me
> > that your first example doesn't use some attack skill, while
> > your second does. Is AC in 3d ed rules based on the attack
> > skill of the attacker or does experience not matter anymore?
>
> You'd have to roll a 10 after modifiers have been added, but my point
> was that it still seems easier just to add things together than do all
> the weird math of 2nd ed. If you have an attack modifier of +3, then in
> the above example you only need to roll a 7. This method seems more
> intuitive to me than having to think about a THACO, and subtracting some
> numbers and adding others, etc.

So you take AC 10, _subtract_ the +3 modifier from it to
know you minimum hit dice?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. You're right of course.

Wim
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 4:06:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:08:32 +0200, "Dirk Dreidoppel"
<dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote:

>After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off :( (
>http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.ph...
>I feel like nuking their HQ right now.
>

Meh, the conclusion for BG2/TOB didn't really leave much in the way of
loose ends. What plot would they use for BG3? Bhaal's really not dead, and
you have to kill him all over again? Sure, you could just have another
generic superbaddie to deal with, but you don't need the BG name to do
that.



--
Hong Ooi | "My hate of d02 know no limit"
hong@zipworld.com.au | -- asw, on rpg.net
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |
Sydney, Australia |
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 4:06:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Hong Ooi <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message news:<mtsk809vtv5hsr7862culft0kpsmae4r5a@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:08:32 +0200, "Dirk Dreidoppel"
> <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> >After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off :( (
> >http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.ph...
> >I feel like nuking their HQ right now.
> >
>
> Meh, the conclusion for BG2/TOB didn't really leave much in the way of
> loose ends. What plot would they use for BG3? Bhaal's really not dead, and
> you have to kill him all over again? Sure, you could just have another
> generic superbaddie to deal with, but you don't need the BG name to do
> that.

Well, the NPCs were really the pitch, weren't they? So just bring
along some of the old friends, maybe convert one of them to a
baddie... similar engine (more or less... familiar surroundings...

How about Viconia and Kagain teaming up to rule the world! For the
money, of course... there would be some juicy sideplots in that one.

I'd go for it. :) 

DJ
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 4:06:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"djarvinen" <jarvinen@proaxis.com> wrote in message
news:4c6b7a6a.0404241041.7cd92680@posting.google.com...
> Hong Ooi <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:<mtsk809vtv5hsr7862culft0kpsmae4r5a@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:08:32 +0200, "Dirk Dreidoppel"
> > <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off :( (
> > >http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.ph...
> > >I feel like nuking their HQ right now.
> > >
> >
> > Meh, the conclusion for BG2/TOB didn't really leave much in the
way of
> > loose ends. What plot would they use for BG3? Bhaal's really not
dead, and
> > you have to kill him all over again? Sure, you could just have
another
> > generic superbaddie to deal with, but you don't need the BG name
to do
> > that.
>
> Well, the NPCs were really the pitch, weren't they? So just bring
> along some of the old friends, maybe convert one of them to a
> baddie... similar engine (more or less... familiar surroundings...
>
> How about Viconia and Kagain teaming up to rule the world! For the
> money, of course... there would be some juicy sideplots in that one.

Nope - Viconia wouldn't do that, especially not if she'd been in the
party with the player. Korgan, maybe, and Edwin(a) certainly, but
Edwin couldn't be a main evil boss. Maybe we meet (Edwin or Edwina) as
a non-party-joinable NPC...

Or a new adventure set back near the actual Baldur's Gate region, and
a couple of decades later (thus justifying starting again with low-ish
level characters.) In which one of the villains (although not
necessarily the major villain) is somebody that got left behind from
the events between BG1 and BG2...

Vampire Dynaheir!!!

(The fact that Minsc's racial enemy changed from Gnolls to Vampires
between BG1 and BG2, indicates that Bodhi and her minions might have
actually been the ones to land the killing blow, rather than it being
a spell from Irenicus. And, of course, those who are killed by a
vampire rise as vampires themselves... originally under the control of
the one who killed them, but Bodhi is of course dead now, so Dynaheir
would be an independent sorceress-vampire. Possibly when she is
staked, her soul would give a "thanks for freeing me" speech and you
get a Nifty Item (TM).)

Of course, for the main villain, there's always the old standby - The
Return Of Sarevok. Because the player had to return him to mortal
life, in order to escape the Throne of Bhaal for the first time.
Obviously he can't have the ambition to be a god any more, but he
might still retain the ambition to be a mortal tyrant. And he's not
dead yet, and he still might have supporters in Baldur's Gate City -
not least of which would be his old minion Winski Perorate the mage...

(All you'd need is the premise that the PC of BG1 and BG2 - who would
not play a part in this game - did NOT take Sarevok into his party in
Throne of Bhaal, or did not convert him to Good. Which is considerably
less of a premise than that on which BG2 is based: i.e. that you took
a full specific party of six - yourself, Imoen, Khalid + Jaheira,
Minsc + Dynaheir - and even dual-classed Imoen, which of course not
everybody did.)

Jonathan.
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 10:58:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

On 24 Apr 2004 11:41:18 -0700, jarvinen@proaxis.com (djarvinen) wrote:

>Hong Ooi <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message news:<mtsk809vtv5hsr7862culft0kpsmae4r5a@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:08:32 +0200, "Dirk Dreidoppel"
>> <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off :( (
>> >http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.ph...
>> >I feel like nuking their HQ right now.
>> >
>>
>> Meh, the conclusion for BG2/TOB didn't really leave much in the way of
>> loose ends. What plot would they use for BG3? Bhaal's really not dead, and
>> you have to kill him all over again? Sure, you could just have another
>> generic superbaddie to deal with, but you don't need the BG name to do
>> that.
>
>Well, the NPCs were really the pitch, weren't they? So just bring
>along some of the old friends, maybe convert one of them to a
>baddie... similar engine (more or less... familiar surroundings...
>
>How about Viconia and Kagain teaming up to rule the world! For the
>money, of course... there would be some juicy sideplots in that one.
>

That's not "Baldur's Gate 3". That's "Tales of Baldur's Gate", or "Baldur's
Gate: Chronicles of the Companions" or something. After the epic scope of
the original, it seems like a marked diminution of scope. It would feel
more like a spinoff, like Angel is to Buffy, rather than a continuation of
the story.

Mind you, a BG3 starring the Bhaalspawn's _kid_ (whether with one of the
romantic interests or otherwise) might be something that would pique my
interest. I hear Tarantino is planning something similar for Kill Bill
3....


--
Hong Ooi | "My hate of d02 know no limit"
hong@zipworld.com.au | -- asw, on rpg.net
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |
Sydney, Australia |
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 8:34:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

>Meh, the conclusion for BG2/TOB didn't really leave much in the way of
>loose ends. What plot would they use for BG3? Bhaal's really not dead, and
>you have to kill him all over again? Sure, you could just have another
>generic superbaddie to deal with, but you don't need the BG name to do
>that.

Baldur's Gate 2: Imoen Has Been Bad And Needs A Spanking.
!